While its true that a jump can be rotated and have a hooked landing, that's not the case with Karen's toe from NHK.
Nobody said her jump was perfectly rotated, but it doesn't need to be. The rule is that a jump needs to be within 1/4 turn and this rule makes sense. I've shown her jump was within 1/4 and you refuse to listen to the evidence. Moreover, you have no real reasoning and provide no scientific measurement of your own. You just say that you think it deserved to be called because you see a hook on the landing.
Her toeloop at 2017 Worlds SP was the same thing and it did not get an underrotation call (nor did it deserve one). So either way you disagreed with a tech caller. You can't have it both ways and try to use nonsense arguments like "the caller knew what they were doing". One of the callers was wrong.
Furthermore, no underrottated jump ever deserves +GOE.
Incorrect. While it may be uncommon, it is possible to do a jump that is superb in all regards, including a flowing landing, yet simply comes down a little more than 1/4 short on the rotation. Or if a jump is drastically pre-rotated and lacks more than 1/4 rotation in total from takeoff to landing point, the same thing applies (although such cases are very rare indeed, because jumps that are pre-rotated this much tend to be inherently smaller, thus less deserving of +GOE).
See here -
Mao Asada 2010 Triple Axel
A beautiful Triple Axel that definitely deserved +GOE...but it was a little more than 1/4 turn underrotated. Just because it deserves the underrotation deduction, that doesn't mean it wasn't also a great jump and deserving of bonus points for GOE. They are separate things.
I personally wouldn't give a UR jump anything higher than 0 GOE, because if the jumping pass is under-rotated, it is not a successful element IMO -- even a 0 is generous because that's baseline. Somebody landing the jump fully-rotated, but averagely executed (as in, no error, just nothing special about it), should be rewarded more than someone who does entry transitions/good height/etc. but fails to land the jump properly.
This makes no logical sense. Underrotation is separate from how well a jump was landed (and also other aspects of the jump). Someone can underrotate a jump and have more flow out on the landing than someone else who got better rotation. Also, there is often very little difference between a jump that deserves an under rotation call and a jump that doesn't. A few degrees of difference in the rotation, virtually indistinguishable, likely entirely indistinguishable without slow-mo.
Furthermore, underrotating a jump doesn't make it a "not successful element" altogether, it simply makes it an easier element. Not much different than comparing a Double Lutz to a Triple Lutz. A 2Lutz jump can deserve +3 GOE, regardless of the fact that it is missing a full turn of rotation as compared to a 3Lutz.
An underrotated 3Lutz is simply the skater getting into the rotation too late or not squeezing their body quite well enough or even breaking out of the rotation too early. It's very possible to do a planned underrotated jump, such as a "1.5" or "2.5" jump, where you specifically try to not land backwards. There is actually quite a famous case of a skater planning a couple jumps of this type for competitive purpose -- Ilia Averbuhk in 2002 purposefully did underrotated Single Axel jumps in the Free Dance for choreographic effect.
The definition of a jump is springing your body into the air. It can be very fun, ever been on a trampoline? Rotation is something you can do to make a jump more difficult.
Imagine a huge powerful Triple Flip from Midori Ito that happens to come down a little more than 1/4 turn short on the landing, but with clean outflow. Such a jump (3Flip< with +2 GOE) is more impressive and deserves more points than a tiny, spindly Triple Flip with no outflow on the landing, from some random Junior skater who happened to get past the 1/4 turn mark on the rotation (3Flip with -1GOE). This Junior skater's smaller and less developed body allowing them to spin themselves off the ice and complete enough of the rotation to be okay on paper doesn't mean they did a good jump. They in fact did a worse jump, despite getting a little bit more rotation on it.
That clip is still sensational every time I see it. 
Those things matter, but they're not the whole story.
